US-Based vs. Non-US-Based Carriers (AA and UA vs. CX)
Dec 21, 2004, 3:40 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: LAS-DEN
Programs: WN CP & B-list. Disillusioned fmr UA-1P/2P,F9-Ascent; Fmr AA-Plat,CO-Gold,NW-Silver,TWA-Elite
Posts: 1,630
US-Based vs. Non-US-Based Carriers (AA and UA vs. CX)
Perhaps this is old news to some, but a recent trip I took to Hong Kong really opened my eyes with regard to the quality of service between US-Based and Non-US-Based carriers.
A co-worker of mine had told me how she prefered to fly Cathay Pacific Airlines over American or United. We fly business class when going international. After flying domestic coach and even domestic first class, I thought UA's int'l business was pretty darn good. However, on a recent trip to Hong Kong, there weren't any business class seats available for my preferred outbound date and times on UA or its partners, so I took Cathay Pacific (CX) just to see what made my co-worker think was so much better about them.
Two items really made CX stand out from UA. First, the seat. Again, I'm comparing CX's business class to UA's business class. I tried for an operational upgrade in both directions but, according to the gate agents, "first class had checked in full."
CX's seat reclined to 171 degrees vs. 150 degrees for UA. CX's is an all electric seat, which makes it a lot easier to get the seat in just the right position for the most comfort. On UA, when trying to move the seat against gravity, I was using my hands or feet to try to cause the foot rest or back to move "up". The foot rest would sometimes sink down when I put too much weight on it. When in the seat for 15+ hours (LAX-HKG), getting the seat to the maximum comfort position is important. Further, just the seat design seemed to be a lot better than UA's. I was able to compare UA's just 3 days later on my return (HKG-SFO).
I was able to sleep 7 hours in the CX seat and 5 hours in the UA seat. Of course, seat comfort alone might not have been the only factor. Still, I can definately say that CX's seat was more comfortable.
The other item that was a lot better on CX was their in-flight entertainment (IFE) system. CX has "on-demand" movies and TV programs. Simply choose the movie or show you want to see from a menu and it starts when you want to start. Pause, rewind or fast forward, just like if you were watching a DVD at home. Same with the audio system. Instead of a music "loop", CX lets you choose a CD from a very large selection. I wouldn't have thought that CX would have had US country music, since they are HKG based, but sure enough, Gretchen Wilson's CD was on there. The "Redneck Woman" has come a long way from Southern Illinois to Cathay Pacific Airlines!
Also on CX's IFE were many different games, including Nintendo and even the ability to play chess against the computer or another passenger.
Now..... I booked the tickets on Dec 9 for Dec 11 outbound and Dec 15 return. I used AA to go DEN-LAX, then CX LAX-HKG (one world partners). I used UA from HKG-SFO-LAS, then a 2 day layover in Vegas (for work -- really!) before going back to DEN on Dec 17. The AA/CX segements were just over $4000 (with "complimentary" first class on the DEN-LAX AA leg). The UA segments were just over $3000, with TED E+ on SFO-LAS-DEN segments. So, some of that AA/CX comfort may come at a price.
I came back on UA because I needed the points to make Premier for 2005. So, going on one airline and coming back on the other made sense for me. It also impressed on me how the FF programs really do keep my loyalty to what is otherwise an inferior product. If I had to make the same trip again in 2005, I'd be inclined to do it again the same way (CX out, UA back or vice versa), to keep my point level up on UA. This is because for my primary domestic flying, UA has the non-stop routes that I need (DEN-LAS and DEN-RNO), so I like to be Premier with them to get the E+ seats. They offer better times and better frequency than F9. Yet, if your primary flying patterns are international, I'd definately be like my co-worker and favor AA/CX, simply because of the superior product over on CX.
I find it really interesting how the FF program itself significantly influences my choices, even to what is otherwise the inferior product, simply because, in the long run, for my particular flying patterns, gives me an overall superior travel experience (faster check-in, E+ seating, when traveling domestically). Thus, UA's FF program makes me fly their inferior business class so that I can keep the Premier. Interesting, huh?
A co-worker of mine had told me how she prefered to fly Cathay Pacific Airlines over American or United. We fly business class when going international. After flying domestic coach and even domestic first class, I thought UA's int'l business was pretty darn good. However, on a recent trip to Hong Kong, there weren't any business class seats available for my preferred outbound date and times on UA or its partners, so I took Cathay Pacific (CX) just to see what made my co-worker think was so much better about them.
Two items really made CX stand out from UA. First, the seat. Again, I'm comparing CX's business class to UA's business class. I tried for an operational upgrade in both directions but, according to the gate agents, "first class had checked in full."
CX's seat reclined to 171 degrees vs. 150 degrees for UA. CX's is an all electric seat, which makes it a lot easier to get the seat in just the right position for the most comfort. On UA, when trying to move the seat against gravity, I was using my hands or feet to try to cause the foot rest or back to move "up". The foot rest would sometimes sink down when I put too much weight on it. When in the seat for 15+ hours (LAX-HKG), getting the seat to the maximum comfort position is important. Further, just the seat design seemed to be a lot better than UA's. I was able to compare UA's just 3 days later on my return (HKG-SFO).
I was able to sleep 7 hours in the CX seat and 5 hours in the UA seat. Of course, seat comfort alone might not have been the only factor. Still, I can definately say that CX's seat was more comfortable.
The other item that was a lot better on CX was their in-flight entertainment (IFE) system. CX has "on-demand" movies and TV programs. Simply choose the movie or show you want to see from a menu and it starts when you want to start. Pause, rewind or fast forward, just like if you were watching a DVD at home. Same with the audio system. Instead of a music "loop", CX lets you choose a CD from a very large selection. I wouldn't have thought that CX would have had US country music, since they are HKG based, but sure enough, Gretchen Wilson's CD was on there. The "Redneck Woman" has come a long way from Southern Illinois to Cathay Pacific Airlines!
Also on CX's IFE were many different games, including Nintendo and even the ability to play chess against the computer or another passenger.
Now..... I booked the tickets on Dec 9 for Dec 11 outbound and Dec 15 return. I used AA to go DEN-LAX, then CX LAX-HKG (one world partners). I used UA from HKG-SFO-LAS, then a 2 day layover in Vegas (for work -- really!) before going back to DEN on Dec 17. The AA/CX segements were just over $4000 (with "complimentary" first class on the DEN-LAX AA leg). The UA segments were just over $3000, with TED E+ on SFO-LAS-DEN segments. So, some of that AA/CX comfort may come at a price.
I came back on UA because I needed the points to make Premier for 2005. So, going on one airline and coming back on the other made sense for me. It also impressed on me how the FF programs really do keep my loyalty to what is otherwise an inferior product. If I had to make the same trip again in 2005, I'd be inclined to do it again the same way (CX out, UA back or vice versa), to keep my point level up on UA. This is because for my primary domestic flying, UA has the non-stop routes that I need (DEN-LAS and DEN-RNO), so I like to be Premier with them to get the E+ seats. They offer better times and better frequency than F9. Yet, if your primary flying patterns are international, I'd definately be like my co-worker and favor AA/CX, simply because of the superior product over on CX.
I find it really interesting how the FF program itself significantly influences my choices, even to what is otherwise the inferior product, simply because, in the long run, for my particular flying patterns, gives me an overall superior travel experience (faster check-in, E+ seating, when traveling domestically). Thus, UA's FF program makes me fly their inferior business class so that I can keep the Premier. Interesting, huh?
Dec 21, 2004, 5:42 pm
#2
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Programs: GGL/GFL
Posts: 1,032
I certainly agree that the AVOD entertainment system on CX is fantastic. I'm in a similar position as you where international is business, domestic is coach.
I've flown CX several trips this year and while at first I loved the seat, I'm not as crazy about it anymore. The angle to the floor is frustrating to me. It is still a good product, but certainly not as good as BA or VS.
I took my first coach trip on CX last month (leisure) and since the flights were full they op-upped me on 3/4 segments including the two transpac segments in recognition of my AA Plat status. I was extremely impressed by their recognition of their partners status...
An interesting note is that the if you are connecting, then the flights through SFO are often cheaper than LAX. CX has no non-stop competition on the LAX route and J class fares are often quite a bit higher than their own nonstops out of SFO. (where they compete with UA and SQ)
From SFO in addition to UA, you could take the nonstop Singapore flight to HKG and still get UA miles (but not elite bonus - which is the sole reason I have not switched to star alliance...)
Might be good to try on your next trip as SQ is often regarded as the "best" Asian carrier. Although, their spacebed has gotten mixed reviews, their entertainment system is supposed to blow Cathays away.
I've flown CX several trips this year and while at first I loved the seat, I'm not as crazy about it anymore. The angle to the floor is frustrating to me. It is still a good product, but certainly not as good as BA or VS.
I took my first coach trip on CX last month (leisure) and since the flights were full they op-upped me on 3/4 segments including the two transpac segments in recognition of my AA Plat status. I was extremely impressed by their recognition of their partners status...
An interesting note is that the if you are connecting, then the flights through SFO are often cheaper than LAX. CX has no non-stop competition on the LAX route and J class fares are often quite a bit higher than their own nonstops out of SFO. (where they compete with UA and SQ)
From SFO in addition to UA, you could take the nonstop Singapore flight to HKG and still get UA miles (but not elite bonus - which is the sole reason I have not switched to star alliance...)
Might be good to try on your next trip as SQ is often regarded as the "best" Asian carrier. Although, their spacebed has gotten mixed reviews, their entertainment system is supposed to blow Cathays away.
Dec 21, 2004, 9:30 pm
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: LAS-DEN
Programs: WN CP & B-list. Disillusioned fmr UA-1P/2P,F9-Ascent; Fmr AA-Plat,CO-Gold,NW-Silver,TWA-Elite
Posts: 1,630
WOW... I'd love to know how SQ's IFE "blows away" CX's. I'm not saying that it isn't possible, but I can't think of something that CX is missing.
I did consider SQ for the outbound segment, but seat availability for times that worked for me were lacking. I really find that flying in as much darkness as possible helps me get over the jet lag the best. I flew LHR-ORD once and left at 10:30 AM and arrived about 3 PM. I couldn't sleep the whole trip because of the sun aways being outside and the lights on in the cabin. So, I wanted CX's 10:35 PM departure, rather than SQ's noon-ish departure. The 7 hours of sleep that I got on CX really helped me adjust easily to the time difference while I was there.
If UA would have given me the 50% J-class EQM bonus, I would have fought harder to try to use SQ. Assuming that I could have got both 1.5x miles in both directions, and then bought the EQM double deal for $150, I might have made it to PREMIER EXEC. That would have been worth it. But, with no seat availability on SQ, it made more sense to fly on CX. Maybe next time I can fly on SQ.
I think I can see how the slight angle of CX's J-seat might be a problem after a while. However, regardless of the angle, I still think it beats UA's J-seat. I haven't had the chance to try BA or VS. So many airlines, so little time, you know!
Can you tell me how SQ's IFE "blows away" CX's IFE?
I did consider SQ for the outbound segment, but seat availability for times that worked for me were lacking. I really find that flying in as much darkness as possible helps me get over the jet lag the best. I flew LHR-ORD once and left at 10:30 AM and arrived about 3 PM. I couldn't sleep the whole trip because of the sun aways being outside and the lights on in the cabin. So, I wanted CX's 10:35 PM departure, rather than SQ's noon-ish departure. The 7 hours of sleep that I got on CX really helped me adjust easily to the time difference while I was there.
If UA would have given me the 50% J-class EQM bonus, I would have fought harder to try to use SQ. Assuming that I could have got both 1.5x miles in both directions, and then bought the EQM double deal for $150, I might have made it to PREMIER EXEC. That would have been worth it. But, with no seat availability on SQ, it made more sense to fly on CX. Maybe next time I can fly on SQ.
I think I can see how the slight angle of CX's J-seat might be a problem after a while. However, regardless of the angle, I still think it beats UA's J-seat. I haven't had the chance to try BA or VS. So many airlines, so little time, you know!
Can you tell me how SQ's IFE "blows away" CX's IFE?
Dec 22, 2004, 3:34 pm
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 13,145
IMO, CX & SQ beats AA & UA in every department (IFE, Meals, Service, etc). I always choose CX or SQ over UA when flying SFO-HKG. The only thing that AA & UA have that CX & SQ don't are domestic flights within the US. BTW, you can still earn United mileage on SQ flights 
Dec 22, 2004, 3:59 pm
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Programs: Bar Alliance Gold
Posts: 16,271
Originally Posted by FCfree
I find it really interesting how the FF program itself significantly influences my choices, even to what is otherwise the inferior product, simply because, in the long run, for my particular flying patterns, gives me an overall superior travel experience (faster check-in, E+ seating, when traveling domestically). Thus, UA's FF program makes me fly their inferior business class so that I can keep the Premier. Interesting, huh?
This, in turn, hurts the domestic's ability to sell the seats to people not wedded to their frequent flyer program, or encourges people to spend the money on a fellow carrier, and credit the miles to the domestic (like fly paid F on SQ and credit the miles to UA). Revenue-sharing deals like UA and LH has across the Atlantic might just be the wave of the future, as it helps UA get premium cabin revenue that is going to LH due to superior service and product, while LH helps get revenue for Economy passengers flying UA for the superior service and product.
